St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1887-11-23
Judge Mitchell Discusses the
Use of "Stickers" in Rem
dering the Opinion.
The Relations of a Pastor
and His Heirs to a
Church Parsonage.
Two Suits for Damages on
Account Of Fatal Inju-
pieS--COurt Notes.

passed in by Judge Mitchell. of the
supreme court, yesterday. The decision
sustains the ruling of the district court
and leaves DR.. Quinn in the coroner S
chair. Judge Mitchell discusses one or
two interesting points i'll his opinion.
He says appellants assignments of
error may all be reduced to three.
FirSt-That under the respondents
notice of contest no evidence was adj
Missile as to the actual vote cast in
any election precinct except the First
and Second of the Second ward of ST.
Paul. 1t is unnecessary TO consider this
for the reason that the recount i'll the
other precincts was more favorable to
appellant than the returns of the judges
of election. Hence the admission of
the evidence, if error was error, without
prejudice.
Second-That the court erred in re-
ceiving the returns for the town of New
Canada for the reason that two of the
Judges of election were disqualified be-
cause they could not read the English
language There is no claim that these
Judges made any mistake or that the
votes east for appellant in that town
were not all counted for him. AsSum-
ing, without deciding, that these judges
were, for the reason stated, not quail
fed to act. there is nothing better set
tied than that the acts of election Of
ficers de factO. being in under color of
election or appointment, are valid as to
third parties and the public. The doc
trine that electors may be DISTINGUISHED
because one or more of the Judges of
election did not possess all the qualifi-
cations required by law finds no sup
port in the decisions of any judicial tri-
buna!. Taylor vs.. Taylor, 10 Mime
sofa. 1911.
Third-That the court erred in count
ing for respondent los ballots, chewing
his name printed in blue ink on pastors
attached to said ballots on the face
thereof" and Immediately below the
words ''fOr coroner" The evidence
shows that respondent had these ''stick-
ers' or ''pasters' printed and distributed
SO that they might be pasted over the
printed name of his opponent on the
tickets of the opposite party. There is
no evidence that they were intended or
operated as a means of distinguishing
one ballot from another. 1t was simply
the common form of ''StickerS" pasted
on the face of the ticket. This is no
more a violation of the provisions of
general statutes, chapter l, section 80.
than it would be for an electOr to erase
the printed name of one candidate and
write on the face of the ballot the name
of another. The prohibition of the
statute is against using ballot contain
ing any cut or device on its face, or any
cut or device or any written or printed
matter Oh its back made to distinguish
one ballot from another. The purpose
is to protect the secrecy of the ballot so
as to secure the voter against intimida-
ton and not to compel men to vote the
straight ticket"
THE SYLLABUS.
In the matter of the appeal of James
A. Quinn, contestant ana respondent.
VS.. j. e. Markoe, cOnteStee and APP
pellant.
SyllabuS-The acts of the election
officers de factO, being i'll under cOlor.of
election or appointment. are valid as to
third parties and the public, and it is
no ground for the rejection of the vote
of an election precinct that some of the
Judges of election did not possess the
qualifications required by law. A
'.sticker'' or ''paster' containing the
name of candidate, and attached to
the face of ballot. is not a ''cut or de-
vice TO distinguish one ballot from an
other within the meaning of general
statutes 1878, chapter l, section 81.
MITCHELL, j.
LAYING OUT HIGHWAYS.
The Town of Haven. respondent, VS..
A. p. orion. appellant.
SyilabuS-An order dismiSSing an ap-
peal from an order of the town super
ViSOrs laying out highway, and from
their award of damages. is appealable,
under Gen. Stat. 1878, chap. Sc, sec. s.,
subd. ), as IAN order which in effect de-
termineS an action and prevents judg-
ment from which an appeal might
be TAKEN" If notice of appeal has been
actually served upon the chairman of
the board of supervisors. the mere fact
that proof of such service has not been
filed with the clerk of the district court
is no ground for diSmiSSing the appeal.
Under the read law the filing of proof
of such service is not prerequisite to
the perfecting of an appeal. Where
the notice of an appeal from an order
laying out highway describes the Or
der and the highway SO as to fully iden-
tify il. and appriSe the supervisors be-
yOnd the possibility of mistake what is
appealed from, it is sufficient, although
it mlSStates the exact date of the order.
Order reversed. MITCHELL, j..
USURY LAW.
TheOphlluS LukenS. respondent, VS..
Isaac HaZlett, appellant.
SylabuS-The rule of evidence in
uSury cases is the same as in any other
civil action. All that is required is a
fair prepOnderance of evidence. When
a new contract Is substituted for uSurl-
Gus one the faint of uSury will affect the
new security. II. the payee of an over
due uSuriOuS note, pretending to l.. the
maker, to refuse to renew it, referred
him TO h, from whom he said he could
borrow the money to pay it. l. there
upon applied to K for the loan, which K
pretended to make to him, taking from
him note running TO himself and Civ
ing him check on HIS bank. which l.
Endorsed over to III, receiving in eX-
change therefor merely his old note. In
fact. the pretended loan by K was merely
colorado. the transaction being a mere
device by ii to evade the uSury law, X
being his agent and the new note in fact
belonging to III and being taken in sub
Stitution for the first one. Held, that l.
could recover the value of property
taken on "A chattel mortgage executed
to secure the new note on the ground
that it was usuriOus. although at the
time of its execution he was ignorant of
that fact, and supposed that it was
made to secure an actual loan made TO
him by X. 1t is immaterial that there
was no intent on the part of l. to pay
uSury. and no knowledge that the new
note was usuriOus. The latitude to be
allowed in cross-eXamination is largely
within the discretion of the trial court,
and this court will not reverse unless
there has been gross and oppressive
abuse of such discretion. Judgment
affirmed. MITCHELL, j.
TIE CLAIM on A PAIRS ONAGE.
The trustees of the East Norway
Lake Lutheran Church eft al. respond
entS, VS.. Bernt Froislie and Oscar
Froislie. appellants.
SylIabus-Where religious society
employees a pastor under an agreement,
by which he is to receive for his services
as such, a certain cash salary and the
use of parsonage as residence, the
contract is one personal to himself. and